Opinion
July 21, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record supports the trial court's determination that the defendant's statements to the police were voluntary, as "the incriminating [statements were] uttered by [the defendant] immediately after he was informed by a detective of the charges pending against him. It is apparent that the detective's comment was declarative in nature, and could not reasonably be construed as one likely to elicit an incriminating response" (People v. McAdoo, 166 A.D.2d 674, 675; see also, People v. Huffman, 61 N.Y.2d 795; People v. Bonacorsa, 115 A.D.2d 546).
The defendant's contention that there was an inordinate delay in his arraignment is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit. There is no indication that the police delayed the arraignment in order to obtain an uncounseled confession (cf., People v. Price, 193 A.D.2d 820; People v. Cooper, 101 A.D.2d 1). Rather, the arraignment was delayed in order to facilitate a lineup (see, People v. Barker, 168 A.D.2d 211; People v. Horn, 161 A.D.2d 603).
The court did not err in denying the defendant's challenge of a prospective juror for cause. The record does not support a finding that the prospective juror possessed a "state of mind that [was] likely to preclude [her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial" (CPL 270.20 [b]), or that there was a "substantial risk" that she would be unable to discharge her responsibilities as a juror (People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 885; see, People v. Williams, 233 A.D.2d 348).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.